Cited by

(balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect “begins with a proper assessment of the ‘probative value of the evidence on the issue for which it is offered’” ()).

apply unless the state rules would affect a substantive federal right.” Shotwell v. 6 ¶ 6 (2004); cf. Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291, 300 (1982) (“[A] State may confer procedural protections of liberty interests that extend beyond those minimally required by the Constitution of the United States.”).

apply unless the state rules would affect the substantive federal right.” ¶ 6 (2004); cf. Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 5 ROBLEDO v. ROBLEDO Decision of the Court 291, 300 (1982) (“[A] State may confer procedural protections of liberty interests that extend beyond those minimally required by

“A proper Rule 403 balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect begins with a proper assessment of the ‘probative value of the evidence with respect to the issue for which it is offered.’” ¶ 34 (2004) ( ¶ 17 (2002)).

“A proper Rule 403 balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect begins with a proper assessment of the probative value of the evidence on the issue for which it is offered.” 9 ¶ 34 (2004) (internal quotation omitted).

¶ 34 (2004) (“The greater the probative value and the more significant in the case the issue to which it is addressed, the less probable that factors of prejudice or confusion can substantially outweigh the value of the evidence.”).

403; Yauch, 198 Ariz. at 403, ¶ 26 , 10 P.3d at 1190 (stating the balancing of factors under Rule 403 is peculiarly a function of trial, not appellate courts); -96, ¶ 33 , -54 (2004) (“For the benefit of the appellate court, a trial court conducting its Rule 403 analysis should explain on the record its Rule 403 weighing process.”).

¶ 10 With respect to Bogard’s discrimination claim, -89, ¶ 1 , -47 (2004).

803(8), advisory committee note 8; ¶ 19 , (stating Arizona’s rule mirrors the federal rule).

SRP and its amicus cite two cases in support of this argument: , 295-96 ¶¶ 31-36, -54 (2004) (remanding for new Rule 403 determination because basis of original ruling was legally *501 insufficient), , 403 ¶ 26, (noting that Rule 403 balancing "is peculiarly a function

In claiming that the court’s failure to conduct a Rule 403 balancing on the record requires reversal, -96, ¶ 33 , -54 (2004).